AN/AAQ-33 Advanced Targeting Pod Discussion

[Northstar98]

10 hours ago, Ivandrov said:

256x256 was the number I heard last for the DCS pod but that might have been for the Spanish LITENING II

It's also cited here as the resolution for LITENING II FLIR (and LITENING II is what's stated in the manual for the F-16CM and F/A-18C - the A-10Cs however mention LITENING AT).

10 hours ago, YoYo said:

since it is currently impossible to downgrade AN/AAQ-28, I propose that at least in this respect the image should not be worse, so that it would be a compromise.

Why is it impossible? And why should the inferior pod have magical digital zoom? We've already got people saying that LITENING is superior in image quality, when the exact opposite should be true, at least in part because AAQ-28s limitations aren't being modelled.

9 hours ago, jojojung said:

In my opinon the Litning pod should be downgraded. There is no other option in my opinon. The perfect picture though all digital zooms and slew movements is far unrealistic for the AN/AAQ-28.
I think realism was the main aspect which differents DCS from other sims like warthunder etc. 
Sorry for the old eyes or the planes which dont have the sniper pod. But the F16 has its limits as every other planes has this limites. And the F16 should have the most advanced pod in DCS with the AN/AAQ-33. I we all agree with that.
To leave a less capaple pod IRL overpowered in this game because some people would be furios is the wrong way when you say "as real as it gets".
DCS should be a simulation and when it must be downgraded because of DCS is progressing this is the way to go. If you dont want it, there are many other sims that dont have this claim!

Absolutely agreed - this game should be about simulating aircraft and their systems as accurately as possible - that means depicting capabilities and limitations.

10 hours ago, Kev2go said:

even so like these videos others have posted of MFD recordings ( so not stretched from recording software) i wouldn't be able to tell they were 500 something pixel image. when you have small displays you dont need as high resolution.  anyone who has actually tried to sport any noticable difference for thier nakeyed  between 1080p and 1440p on thier 7-8 inch smartphone screens will know this is true.

Yes but more to the point about small screens - in DCS we're more than capable of zooming in beyond what you'd be able to see with the naked eye. Depending on the size of your display you can make the MFDs appear larger than their true size.

 

As for me, I'll probably be using Sniper from now on - higher fidelity and completeness is what I gravitate to and at the moment Sniper is superior when it comes to both.

[Kid18120]

16 hours ago, NineLine said:

Yeah, we are weighing what it will do for those that want optics simulated more accurately for the older TGPs, and others that want to keep the older TGPs the way they are. An option would be nice, but it could then snowball from there. So, we will weigh options. However, the optics of the AAQ-33 are accurate, and have no plans or need to adjust those.

The most common issue we see with customer use of the AAQ-33 is not taking advantage of the NARO field of views, remembering to first stabilize in Point, Area, or INR, and then using XR processing. 

 

The problem here wish the second part of your observation is that TV-XR modes are useless at night and the IR-XR modes are far less "hires" compared to the current implementation of the Litening pod, making the IR Pointer the only real benefit of the sniper over the litening at night time. 
Hopefully there will be adjustments in the very near future. 
In daytime there's no reason at all to use the Litening any more IMHO

[Mateo]

I would like to add that build in DCS Sniper image defocus and quality (also while slew) are far worse than original Sniper image quality - @YoYo post here. It need inestigation for sure. No track needed, dev should re-estimate that image quality. Even simple test, range 10 nm, TV NARO mode 3.0x, just like in the video.

[YoYo]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Why is it impossible? And why should the inferior pod have magical digital zoom? We've already got people saying that LITENING is superior in image quality, when the exact opposite should be true, at least in part because AAQ-28s limitations aren't being modelled.

The answer is very simple: since development of the AN/AAQ-33 probably took a year, how long do you think it would take now to downgrade the AN/AAQ-28, not only for the F-16C but also for other modules it uses? It's impossible, and I'm convinced that the ED has completely different priorities right now. A quick solution might be to add an option like "Sharp Image =  On/Off" for the Sniper to the "Special Tab" for the F-16C + forced on/off option in ME (for mission, MP creators), which would disable the current blur and imprecise focus, making the AN/AAQ-33 better TGP in terms of optics to the AN/AAQ-28 (currently it is completely the opposite).

Edited 8 hours ago by YoYo

[Northstar98]

59 minutes ago, YoYo said:

The answer is very simple: since development of the AN/AAQ-33 probably took a year, how long do you think it would take now to downgrade the AN/AAQ-28, not only for the F-16C but also for other modules it uses?

I don't know - not a developer. But somehow I doubt that all of the development time went into adding a blur filter and a resolution-limited picture...

1 hour ago, YoYo said:

not only for the F-16C but also for other modules it uses?

Why couldn't it be reused?

1 hour ago, YoYo said:

It's impossible

So if something takes a year (just going by your numbers) it's impossible?
 

What?

1 hour ago, YoYo said:

making the AN/AAQ-33 better TGP in terms of optics to the AN/AAQ-28 (currently it is completely the opposite)

Which still wouldn't result in AN/AAQ-33 being better than the magical AAQ-28... Again - 9x magical lossless digital zoom.

[Tenkom]

Let's try not to get too off-topic here. This thread is about the new pod. The focus should be on helping ED getting it as close to realistic as possible. The older pod has nothing to with this.

[szymixzmb]

19 minutes ago, Tenkom said:

Let's try not to get too off-topic here. This thread is about the new pod. The focus should be on helping ED getting it as close to realistic as possible. The older pod has nothing to with this.

Exactly, if we want to change something we need to provide reference material

[jojojung]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb Tenkom:

Let's try not to get too off-topic here. This thread is about the new pod. The focus should be on helping ED getting it as close to realistic as possible. The older pod has nothing to with this.

I think the topic should bei changed then not the discussion should bei closed. because the whole thread is about comparing the Litning vs the Sniper pod. All agreed that the Sniper is modeled very well. The problem apears when you compare the pods.

vor 2 Minuten schrieb szymixzmb:

Exactly, if we want to change something we need to provide reference material

I dont think ED needs more evidence to know that the Sniper is well simulated and the Litning was an early try to get a usable pod inplemented to make gbus etc possible. It was early access not more.

[antiload]

Question: Do you still have to boresight the Mavericks using the new tpod? Thanks 

[szymixzmb]

4 minutes ago, jojojung said:

I think the topic should bei changed then not the discussion should bei closed. because the whole thread is about comparing the Litning vs the Sniper pod. All agreed that the Sniper is modeled very well. The problem apears when you compare the pods.

I dont think ED needs more evidence to know that the Sniper is well simulated and the Litning was an early try to get a usable pod inplemented to make gbus etc possible. It was early access not more.

What I mean that some people here thinks that the quality of the image of the sniper does not take to the account that the videos (reference material) is compressed